1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: +
→Liberal opinion
: I am confused as to why an encyclopedia is covering ''ought'' rather than ''is''. Typically, aren't the ''oughts'' part of blogs? Even [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] covers this: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." The very nature of an ''ought'' is opinion rather than fact. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
: I am confused as to why an encyclopedia is covering ''ought'' rather than ''is''. Typically, aren't the ''oughts'' part of blogs? Even [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] covers this: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." The very nature of an ''ought'' is opinion rather than fact. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:17, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::I think you nailed it, Rutm. This article should be about the history and present state of women in the military, and while the issues of acceptance are part of the historical component, opinions as to whether women ''should'' or ''ought to'' serve belongs on a debate page instead. Thanks for the succinct clarification.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:05, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
The article lacks description of the history of women in the military. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
The article lacks description of the history of women in the military. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:38, 2 May 2008 (EDT)